- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:45:14 -0700
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: www-style@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Chris Lilley wrote: > >>> 3) In section 3. Syntax and Parsing, the actual grammar for a style >>> attribute, following CSS2.1 chapter 4, appears to be > >>> declaration-list >>> : C* S* C* declaration? C* [ ';' C* S* C* declaration? C*]* C* >>> ; > >>> where C is the comment production. Is that correct? (Specifically, are >>> leading and trailing comments allowed, as well as ones between tokens?) > > f> I'll leave this question to Bert, who's our resident grammar expert. > > I haven't found any response from Bert on this. Peter and Zack responded instead. See the responses to your message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Feb/0192.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Feb/0193.html >>> 4) However, in In section 3. Syntax and Parsing, >... >>> The contents could be argued to include the curly braces, therefore. >>> This might be made clearer ... > > f> Given that it's rather odd to say that the contents of a block delimited > f> by curly braces includes the curly braces *and* given that the statement > f> is qualified by the application of a formal grammar rule that does not > f> include the curly braces, I don't think this clarification is necessary. > > This is suboptimal, given that the prose in general overrides the grammars > and that the prose uses an undefined term. It is particularly unfortunate, > given that there have been discussions in the past as to whether curly > braces were allowed (and proposals to extend the syntax, taking advantage > of the curly braces). > > f> Please let me know if you consider this a problem. > > We would prefer that the clarification, which is a minor wording change > which improves the clarity, still be added. I've added "(excluding the delimiting braces)" to the paragraph here: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-style-attr/#syntax Let me know if this addresses your comment. > Scientific notation is NOT allowed. > > I have been asked by the SVG WG to ask the CSS WG, once again, to allow > scientific notation for those properties which allow it. In SVG, currently > those properties allow scientific notation in presentation attributes but > dissallow it in style sheets (style attributes, style elements, external > style sheets). This disparity causes user confusion. This issue is out of scope for the Styling Attributes specification. (Also, the CSSWG has already resolved not to make this change.) ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 12:46:06 UTC